T.C.
II BEYANNAME Prof. erlendirme .../../..
III
a
IV -Fen Bilgisi I+126 -yeter
--yeterlikleri, nitel ve nicel veri toplama teknikleri birlikte
- ve
-V
- onucunda elde
-5 ve
5
-Kruskal Wallis ve Mann
Whitney
-0- p olan, fen bilgisi
ile s leri ve fen bilgisi ile o
olarak anl ile o
- an, fen bilgisi ile s
ve fen bilgisi ile o
tmen/
VI
- er
.
Anahtar Kelimeler:
-VII ABSTRACT
Master Thesis
EXPLORING THE PRE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICE TEACHERS' ASSESSMENT LITERACY AND SELF-EFFICACY ABOUT ASSESSMENT
LITERACY
University
Institute of Educational Science Department of Science Education
I+126
In this study utilizing the survey method, pre-service and in-service science,
elementary and pre- -efficacy about
assessment literacy were investigated. 108 science teachers (N=36), elementary teachers (N=36), pre-school teachers (N=36) and 105 4th grade pre-service science teachers in the Department of Science Education Program (N=35), Elementary Teacher Education Program (N=35) and Pre-School Teacher Education Program (N=35) in Faculty of Education during 2015-2016 academic year participated in this study. The teachers and
pre- -efficacy about assessment literacy
were investigated using the quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The questionnaires and semi-structured individual interviews used to define the teachers and
pre- -efficacy about assessment literacy.
Interview questions were prepared in parallel with questionnaires.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to evaluate the data obtained from the result of this study in order to investigate the teachers and pre-service -efficacy about assessment literacy. Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U Test that are non-parametric tests were also used to
VIII
compare the differences on the levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy between the 0-5 year-teachers and 5-10 year-teachers.
The statistical analyses of data revealed that there were statistically significance differences among the pre-service science, elementary and pre-school teachers as regards to the levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy (Wilks Lambda=0.000; p<0.05). The analysis also showed that the pre-service elementary teachers were statistically better than pre-service science and pre-school teachers as regards to the levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy (p<0.001). The statistical analyses of data revealed that there were statistically significance differences among the science, elementary and pre-school teachers as regards to the levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy (Wilks Lambda=0.000; p<0.05). At the same time, the analysis showed that the elementary teachers were statistically better than science and pre-school teachers as regards to the levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy (p<0.001). The non-parametric test results showed that there were significant differences between science teachers-elementary teachers and science teachers-pre-school teachers having 0-5 years teaching experience (p<0,05), while there was no significant differences between elementary teachers and pre-school teachers (p>0,05). Also, the analysis indicated that there were significant differences between science teachers-elementary teachers and science teachers-pre-school teachers having 5-10 years teaching experience (p<0,05), while there was no significant differences between elementary teachers and pre-school teachers (p>0,05). Additionally, the findings obtained from individual interviews indicated that pre-service and in-service science teachers were better than both pre-service/in-service elementary and pre-school teachers as regards to the levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy. The analysis also showed that service and in-service pre-school teachers' levels of assessment literacy and self-efficacy about assessment literacy were lover when compared to the other pre-service and in-service teachers.
Keywords: Assessment Literacy, Self-Efficacy about Assessment Literacy, In-service and Pre-service Teachers
IX ONAY ... I BEYANNAME ... II ... III ... IV ABSTRACT ... VII ... XIII ... XVI ... 1 ... 1 ... 4 ... 4 ... 5 ... 8 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 10 ... 10 ... 12 ... 12 ... 13 2.2. ... 13 ... 13 ... 15 2.2.1.2. ... 15 ... 16
X ... 16 ... 16 2.2.2. ... 17 2.2.2.1. Performans D ... 22 ... 22 ... 23 ... 24 ... 24 ... 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... 27 2.4. ... 31 ... 39 2.5. ... 40 2.6. ... 42 ... 46 ... 46 3.1. ... 46 3.2. ... 46 3.3. ... 47 3.4. ... 48 3.5. ... 49 3.5.1. - ... 50 3.5.2. - ... 52 3.5.3. ... 53 3.6. Verilerin Analizi ... 54
XI
3.6.1. Nicel Verilerin Analizleri ... 54
3.6.2. Nitel Verilerin Analizleri ... 56
... 58 IV. BULGULAR ... 58 -Bulgular ... 58 - ... 61 ... 63 ... 63 -Yeterlik Seviyeleriyle ... 64 4.4. ... 65 - ... 66 ... 66 4 -Yeterlikleri ... 68 ... 68 -Yeterlikleri ... 70 ... 70 -Yeterlikleri ... 72 - ... 73
XII - ... 73 --Yeterlikleri ... 75 - ... 76 - -Yeterlileri ... 79 - ... 80 - -yeterlikleri ... 82 -10 Olan S .... 83 - -Yeterlikleri ... 84 4.4.2.9. Hi - ... 85 - -Yeterlikleri ... 87 ... 87 - -Yeterlikleri ... 89 ... 90 ... 90 ... 90 ... 90 93 KAYNAKLAR ... 102 EKLER ... 113
XIII Tablo 1.
... 21
Tablo 2. e Teknikleri (MEB, 2006, s. 23) ... 21
Tablo 3. ... 28 Tablo 4. ... 47 Tablo 5. ... 48 Tablo 6. ... 49 Tablo 7. ... 49 Tablo 8. ... 50 Tablo 9. -2010) ... 51 Tablo 10. ... 54 Tablo 11. ... 55 Tablo 12. ... 59 Tablo 13. ... 59 Tablo 14. ... 60 Tablo 15. -Yeterlik Anketlerine Ait Ortalama ve ... 61
XIV Tablo 16. ... 61 Tablo 17. - ... 62 Tablo 18. ... 63 Tablo 19. FB, S
-Yeterlik Anketlerine Ait Ortalama ... 63 Tablo 20.
... 64
Tablo 21. ndirme
-Yeterlik Seviyelerinin Kruskal Wallis Testi Analiz ... 65
XV Ek 1. -D ..114 Ek 2. ve De -Y 120 Ek 3. Ek 4. -Y Ek 5.
XVI KISALTMALAR AUSF: -MEB: YA:
1 I.
Son ip ne paralel olarak,
-k, ortam bizzat kendisinin ve -- in etkin Bu nedenle, bu ile 2014 d etkin stratejilerinin belirlenmesi, ve tirilmesi . ,
in programda gibi gelenekselden uzak
rehberlik eden ve Ancak
2005-,
eneksel
ve nu
vurgulayarak kullanmaya devam ettikleri belirtilmektedir. Bunlara ek olarak, bu bireysel
2 irmesi ve olarak, in , yeterli h , program vb.) bu
belirtil tir. ise,
ifade edi D - , ne derece etkili en birden illi E B , 2005). ne derece lere usunda bilgi vererek, k programlar de, mektedir.
d etkin olarak uygula uygun bir
yla da d
belirtilmektedir (Mertler ve Campbell, 2005). Ancak,
3 Bu
2011).
yetersizlikleri
n bir
de teorik ve uygulamal er ver
teorik bilgiler ile edindikleri deneyimler,
7).
, sistemin
bjektif puanl
me-4 i,
Nunan, 1988; McNamara ve Deane, 1995;).
-al yeterlik 1.1. genel -1.2. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3.
5
2. tmen adaylar
-yeterlilik seviyeleri nedir? 2.1. -r? 2.2. -2.3. erlendirme -1.3. -Verilen e
-6 yo ara -urslar de belirlenmesi
7 -yeterlik ka -yeterlik -birlikte - -yeterlik -yeterlik
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). kavram
-yeterlik ve --yeterlilik -misini
8 -yeterlik il bir (Kaya, 2008) 1.4. 1. Verilerin toplan lidir. 2. 3. 1.5. 1. - -2. 3. 4. yapan
9 1.6.
edilmesidir (Turgut, 1990).
,
nitel ve nicel bir , 1990).
ta
E ve
becerilerin
2004).
10 II. KURA
edilen bilgiler sun elde
ilk lm bir perspektifte 2.1. , (Harlen, 1998). E
konusunda karar verme, yorumlama ya da
2003). ,
- kinliklerin
tekniklerin ne kadar b
11 ,
ifadeyle, ne
kadar
endirme bilgisinde
leriyle, uygulama, analiz,
. gidermektir. Bu sistemde lir. Sistemin Buna bilgi, beceri ere 5 grupta Bu yap Tekin (2000),
12 2.1.1. Bu rencinin beli s (Tan, Ka ) me sahip midir? d tespit edilirse, irme 2.1.2. b , n .
yapmak, bu eksikleri tamamlamak
13 2.1.3. e y (Tekin, 1999). 2.2. (1). G (2). A dirme ve (3). O . 2.2.1. Geleneksel D 1995). Geleneksel de genellikle
erde elirlenmi bir zaman
puanla
14 da tam , 2002). Bu enme er , 1995; Shepard, 2000; Romberg, 1993). ilginin, pa getirilip ortaya .
verirler testin sonucunda elde edilen bir
benimsenen ya . y , uygulama, sahiptir. Ancak
rlendirme yapmada yetersiz ).
modern
-sor
15 2.2.1.1. orular isteminin avantajlar (Tekindal, 2002). 2.2.1.2. estler ,
edilmemesi gereken testlerdir. bilir.
zorudur. Turgut (1997)
16
birbiriyle anlam
2.2.1.3. estleri
olan bir bilgilere dayanarak iki
ya da olarak . Yani, ru-(Turgut,1997). 2.2.1.4.
grup halinde verilen ve birbirleriyle ilgili ola
(2004
gereken cevap
17 , 2009). ya da -, testlerin dezavant 1-, 2-. 2.2.2. ortaya koyan, larak -savunur st e
18
Taft 2002, McMillan 2001, Settlage 2004, Smith, Smith, ve DeLisi 2001).
eceri ve 2011). Alt . Cor , lgilerine kalem testi (2004) birinci basamakta bulunan basamaktaki a Law ve Eckes (1 natif , -olanak
19
bir
, tta paralel bir
yakla
bilgileri ortaya
bilgilendirmektir.
Haladyna (1997), Johnsen (1996) ve
aran
Merritt, 2008). Johnsen (1999) ve Monson alternatif
belirtilmektedir (Aktaran
20 daha gerekir: , Davies (1999) eyi ve . k da bulunacak Alternatif a birlikte
21 Tablo 1. (McMillian,1997; aktaran Be nceleri Birbirin evap Gizli ve Ara er
Tablo 2. Alternatif (MEB, 2006, s. 23)
rid
Proje
Drama
22 2.2.2.1. Performans D
e d , 2008). Roberts
urada yer alan alternatif durum,
ir (Ersoy, 2008). ve d , (2007)
Bununla birlikte,
-(Ersoy, 2008). rmans da belirtilen
stermektedir (Bahar ve d , 2008). Etkin
ortay bu
(Erbil ve d
2.2.2.2. ortfolyo)
Portfolyo,
, s. 27). Paulson, Paulson ve Mayer (1991, aktaran Vaiz,
23
zel
e d , 2004).
kendini ifade edebilme
yeteneklerini,
2001; Enger ve d , 1998; Oosterhof, 1999; Niguidula, 1993; Hamilton, 1994;
Zollman, 1994; Gilman ve d , 1995; Valencia, 1990).
a (1997 ,
. Bu dezavantajlar,
2.2.2.3.
24 MEB, 2006). nme-e ahin, 2004). 2.2.2.4. da dir. kendi Her eminde ve irme ya
objektif olur (Bahar ve
d derse etkin ve . dir 2.2.2.5. Kendi kendi . n kendi
25 v , 2007; Bahar v , 2006; 2.2.2.6. zgara) , Daha rda
ve Johnstone, 1987; Johnstone, Bahar ve Hansel, 2000;
Bahar, 2003; Danili ve Bu
teknik he
ve bilgi eksiklik
nedeniyle e d , 2002; Bahar v , 2006). Bu teknikte
yordama
b
hem lme
26 (MEB, 2004). ru , 2006). ve zaman gerektirmektedir. v eri, 2006). 2.2.2.7. beklenir. Gelenek
ade edilen sorular birbirinden
v , 2006; Karahan, 2007). Sorudaki ifadeleri
belirten dallanmalar Orhan v ,
2005).
,
Karahan, 2007). Sorulardaki ifadelere
vararak bu
sayede geri d v
, kullanacak olan
in amaca hizmet edecek
te
becerilerinin ka bir tek ve d ,
27 2.2.2.8. Poster D
ilgili kaynakla
ile ilgilenen izleyicilere ana hatla
gra du v leri
2.2.3. Otantik D
D , o
(d
28 Tablo 3.
Sunulan hedef b
Anlama b
ilerletebili
somut model hedefler.
G
verir. verir.
aktif ve etkin sorumluluklar
29
1) lecek bilgi ve
becerileri 2)
olayca sahip olunabilecek problemlerin temelidir ve
3) lemlerle ilgilidir. 4) ( , 2004). dersin en ve puanlamaya dair bulunur (Zimbicki, 2005). Otantik gisini , 2006; Effie, 2004; Semerci, 2001). belirl D
birlikte planlanan yorumlanan puanlanan hangi
kendilerini,
erlendirme ,
ni ve akran si
30 veren,
nin olma
, grup kendini ifade etme
proje ya da belgelettirip
poster formunda (Gordan,1998).
,
yakla her alternatif
otantik .
Alternatif ve o sorunlu
tavsiye edilirken, Pi
, hata analizi, ipucu analizi, konferans vermek, anket ya yapmak
halidir. Yine alternatif geleneksel \ mevcuttur. 1. D 2. 3. 4.
31 5. 6. H 7. 8. 9. 10. konusu 11. otantik de -2 ders saati) --3 hafta 2.4. D O
32 beklenmektedir.
r. , bilgi
sanat okurya
D
lgisinin, nitelikli biri
(Mertler ve Campbell,
rlendirme bilgisi konusunda yeterli ol
teknolojiyle er
, tasarlama
-, puanlama ve istatistiksel veri analizi yapabilme becerilerine sahip olma gibi
lerini
bilmelerinin ya e,
uygulayabilme ve objektif puanlayabilme gibi gerekmektedir (Stiggins, 2002; Volante ve Fazio, 2007).
kararlarda, uygun
33 (Aktaran 2011). D -- (Wang, Wang ve Huang, 2008; aktaran , 2011). aktaran Volante ve Fazio, 2007). , e hem de lendirme rinin , k
kendilerini ifade ettiklerini konusunda iyi ip
34 , uygun bi entegre edilmesi bilmediklerini otantik ya da alternatif yor , Unutulmamal konuyu otantik gelenekselde rdur.
teknolojiyi entegre ederek
35
ve , bilgilerin
ilerlemesini ,
ktir (The DSEA, 2005; aktaran ).
ebil aktif roller Alternatif ve otantik , eksikliklerini , klenen gerekli belirledikleri stratejileri
, bilgisine sahip okuryazar
elik becerisine ve
-
ilgili kararlar ya da
36
,
, puanla le birlikte
standartlar ve kabul edilebi bilgilendirilmesi
konusunda cesaretlendirilmesi
un olarak
Szymanski Sunal ve Haas, 2005).
mizde bu konuyla ilgili Bu kavram gi
erlendirme -yeterlik
kendisini tiren bir
ortaya koyacak
. (Stiggins, 1995). D
o mi ,
37 vb.),
vb.) ve (tasarlama,
dir (Wang, Wang ve Huang, 2008).
1. belirleme,
2. tespit etmek
i kullanma,
3. sonucu elde edilen verileri analiz edebilme, objektif yorumlama ve
4. , eksik 5. Elde edilen -teknikleri tekrar rlik . llikler, bu yeterlilik ala
(Campbell, Murphy ve Holt, 2002; Mertler, 2003; Plake ve Impara, 1993).
(classroom assessmet literacy)
1. ilgi toplamak,
2. -
-gereken becerilerini n planda
38
ve portfolyoyu ve motivasyonunu
kullanabileceklerini bilmek bir
bir
sistemin temelidir (Chappuis, Chappuis ve Stiggins, 2009).
, becerisine sahip
etmen
verilmesi gerekir. bilgisi
sisteminde
39 2.3.1.
-Leavitt, 2012; aktaran Karaman, 2014): 1.
de
vermektedir. Chappuis, Chappuis ve Stiggins (2009),
ilgi (knowled
bilmesini gerektirir, (2) Y encilerin
muhakeme yapabi erformans
kendilerinde var olan
3.
-bel
ettikleri verilerini uy Ancak bu
Bu
-tkili olabilir (Bonner ve Chen, 2009). D
40 2.5. erleri (2010) ya uygulamaya 180 , iki
Barbara S. Plake & James C. Teacher Assessment Literacy
Questionnaire . B
envanter maddesinin 18 tanesine (%
Karaman (2014), , tutum ve m rlendirme dersini teorik olarak ,
41 B me envanterin analizleri sonucu % erkek Cinsiyetin ve la Genel akademik (2014) , Birgin (2007), e
. Elde edilen verilerin
adaylar,
B
42
-yeterlikleri gibi tara
2.6. nda
S. Plake ve James Impara (1993)
anket
tir. Bu anket alt
nket daki 6 okulda, 555
gibi yeterlilik (Plake, 1993).
, verilerin istatiksel olarak
(Sitiggins, 2004; Popham, 2004). Plake ve Impara (1993) belirlenen yet
43 ortalam
Campbell (2002),
ki 35 sorudan ortalama olarak 21 tanesine Mertler (2003), Mertler (2003), uygun d Stiggins (2000) , tir: 2 3) 4) ve teknikleri 5)
44 Connor (2005) , : 1) Summative 2) G ler 4) U 5) ekilde cesaretlendirmeli, 7) K es D ve ne lerin , ye ort ve teknik , 2005; McNamee ve Chen, 2005; McTighe Connor, 2005). olan olumsuz ve G
45 Sittigins (2004) ve McTighe ve da vurgulanmak (Sittigins 2004). Yapt okuryazar seviyelerinin .
46 III. B modeli, , verilerin analiz konular 3.1.
-yeter deneysel olmayan nicel ve nitel
veya
2002). Bu a , hem nicel hem de nitel veri toplama ara
,
3.2.
1.
1.1.
47 1.3.
2.
-yeterlilik seviyeleri nedir?
2.1. -2.2. -2.3. -3.3. 2015-20
da, 35 fen bilgisi , 35 ,
35 ndan veriler (Tablo 4). , teorik dersler Tablo 4. N 35 35 35 Toplam 105 - -6 fen
48 Tablo 5. 0- N 18 18 18 18 18 18 36 36 36 Toplam 54 54 108 3.4. , genel olarak Bu hiz -yeterlikleri . ni -, olarak niversitesi ndeki . Sonr ler -na
49 bir Tablo 6. N Nicel Veri 35 35 35 Toplam 105 Nitel Veri 15 15 15 Toplam 45 Tablo 7. Hizmet 0-N Nicel Veri 18 18 18 18 18 18 36 36 36 Toplam 54 54 108 Nitel Veri 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 Toplam 30 30 60 -(Assessment Literacy Inventory) hi
-50 --yeterliliklerinin --D -Tablo 8. -0) Maddeler 1, 7, 13, 19, 25 2, 8, 14, 20, 26 i uygulayabilme, 3, 9, 15, 21, 30 -kullanabilme 4, 10, 16, 22, 28 5, 11, 17, 23, 29 -6, 12, 18, 24, 27
51 Campell ve Mertler (2005) tar
Tablo 9.
-i, 2010)
-tekniklerini belirleme YA1
-YA2, YA5
3.YA3: Verileri analiz ederek yorumlama,
geribildirim verme YA3, YA6 -YA4 daha sonra 18 envanterin Kuder-
-52 -20 -yutlu
53 ndirme -ronbach Bu -aline
54 3.6. Verilerin Analizi
3.6.1. Nicel Verilerin Analizleri
--yet -- u Tablo 10. -Yeterlik MANOVA
Shapiro-55
istogram grafiklerinden elde edilen sonucu
istatistik -5,5- an -Tablo 11. --Yeterlik Kruskal Wallis Mann Whitney-U -
-5,5--parametrik istatistik testlerinin
-Mann Whitney- istatisti
-
5
--
56
3.6.2. Nitel Verilerin Analizleri
kategori analitik bir metottur (Given, 2008; Krippendorff, 2004;
-mi
n temalar
58 IV. BULGULAR --Ye -yeterlilikleri -1-
--yeterlik ile ilgili son testlerden elde edilen verilerin nor
59 3-
-M testinin istatisti p>.05), varyans-kovaryans
ok -755 F= 7.661, p=0.000). Tablo 12. F Hipotez sd Hata df P Grup Lambda 0.755 7.661 4.000 202.000 0.000 Tablo 13. ve -Yeterlik Anketler Kareler Sd Kareler F P Grup 329.200 2 164.600 11.662 0.000 -yeterlik 5.001 1 1315.32 4.350 0.000 Hata 1439.600 102 14.111 -yeterlik 58.630 102 .575 Toplam 1768.800 104 -yeterlik 63.631 104
60 -adayl Tablo 14. LSD Grup P O - 2.54 .006 - 1.77 .051 - 4.31 .000 -yeterlik - 2.54 .006 - 1.77 .056 - 4.31 .000
[F =4,350, p=0,000]. Post Hoc testlerinden
FB ve
-yeterlik
61
Tablo 15. ve
-Yeterlik Anketlerine Ait Ortalama ve
Grup N Standart Sapma Ortalama
35 3.88771 10.9429 35 3.14816 13.4865 35 4.16125 9.33333 -yeterlik 35 .167 3.06 35 .128 3.54 35 .881 2.67 ve -F=22,523 p=0,000). Tablo 16. F Hipotez sd Hata df P Grup Lambda 0.487 22.523 4.000 208.000 0.000
62 Tablo 17. FB, S,
-Yeterlik Anketleri Ait Karelerin Sd Karelerin F P Grup 793.185 2 396.593 34.650 0.000 -yeterlik 11.020 2 5.510 17.845 0.000 Hata 1201.806 105 14.111 -yeterlik 32.421 105 .309 Toplam 1994.991 107 -yeterlik 43.442 107 k -34,650; p=
Post Hoc testlerinden LSD tes S
enlerinin, FB ve S termektedir (p<0,05) anketinde S or r. , -0,000]. Post Hoc testlerinden
63 -Tablo 18. LSD Grup P - 1.44 .073 - 4.88 .000 - 6.33 .000 -yeterlik - 0.222 .083 - 0.762 .000 - 0.533 .000 Tablo 19. FB, S ve ve
-Yeterlik Anketlerine Ait Ortalama
ve
Grup N Standart Sapma Ortalama
36 3.43222 11.6389 36 2.23447 13.0833 36 4.19098 6.7500 -yeterlik 36 .582 3.07 36 .629 3.47 36 .436 2.71 4.3. Hiz -4.3.1. Okuryaz -5 ve 5--parametrik
64 ile (p<0.05). Tablo 20. Hizmet FB, S v Kruskal Wallis Hizmet S Grup N X SD X2 P 0-5 18 12 3.58 42.95 .000 18 13 2.13 18 5 4.46 5-10 18 10 3.19 18 13 2.38 18 8 3.35 Whitney U testi ku -5 ve 5- 0-deneyime sahip .05),
05). 5- sahip olan; FB ile S
bulunurken (p<0.05), (p>0.05).
-Yeterlik Seviyeleriyle
-5 ve 5
-, non-parametrik testlerden Kruskal Wallis ve Man Whitney -5 ile
5 (p<0.05).
65
Tablo 21. Hizmet Fen Bilgisi, S v dirme
-Yeterlik Seviyelerinin Kruskal Wallis Testi Analiz
Grup N X SD X2 P 0-5 18 3.53 0.530 30.520 .000 18 3.41 0.426 18 3.36 0.408 5-10 18 3.13 0.709 18 2.95 0.450 18 2.60 0.439 , etmenlerinin 0- - - 0-05), 05). 5-bulunurken (p<0.05), >0.05). Analizler
-yeterlikleri ile ilgili elde
66 -Analizleri n :
elere dikkat edilmedir?
neden olarak d
kapsayacak
: KPSS
67 . ibi de : kulla sorular
68 4.4.1 -Yeterlikleri gibi Staj y irme bilgisi e uygun
69 olabilir? : ? gibi bir kavr
70 -Yeterlikleri ver :
-im. Bunlar teoride bildiklerim fakat uygulamada okul deneyimi
71 A3: gibi s Hangi da, verilen
72 . pla ikle bilirken -Yeterlikleri gibi
73 Kend 4.4 --5 ola
74
gibi sorular
iklerinden
ve :
kaynaklar sadece geleneksel ve a
otantik ve
rlendirme
:
75
esas olan testlerde
ebilirim yeniden yeni bir
--Yeterlikleri
76 ilmiyorum olsun -FB k H - D
77 d i kullanmada etkili , li lerin ve ndirme alternatifin kullan performans 10: bunun da sebebi
78
puan
gere
Alterna
rumlama, puanlama ve uygulama, e
erini yeterli hissediyor musunuz
79 hissediyorum.
Al
ola
4.4.2.4. 5-10 Olan Fen Bilgisi -Yeterlileri
- , U erlendirme
yeterli olma
ndini yeterli hissetmemektedir.
80 4.4.2.5. -5 Olan S Hizme B nda gibi sorula S i m indirgeyerek
81 D d verilen -G
biraz objektif olmuyor. E
- nlerine, Sizce, ders sonunda ya da ders
, la
82 4.4.2.6. - -yeterlikleri S U gibi bu D
83
4.4.2.7. -10 Olan S
-10 olan S
B
lere dikkat edilmedir? Hangi -10 r. gerekmektedir. - cerisi . Bunu yeni ya , D
84 menler daha verilen S . 4.4.2.8. -10 Olan S -Yeterlikleri S
85 r ve formlar dir: 4.4.2.9. -. yarg erlendirmedir.
86 haritas . derinlem asgari
-yorumlama, puanlama ve uygulama, e lendirme
gibi sorular -vermi dir: ,
87 4.4.2.10. H -5 Olan -Yeterlikleri -olma 4.4.2.11. H -D me
? Nelere dikkat edilmedir? Hangi
kriterleri kendilerinin belirlediklerini,
rdikleri
enekler, bilgi ve
88 rekmektedir. puanlama ve uygulama, e konular da dikkate sp
ise ilik arz eden
puan,
Bizde
89 4.4.2.12. H - -Yeterlikleri -olm hissetmediklerini , hissediyorum.
90 -5. yer alan 30 maddeden ortalama olarak 11
13 (% 43 9
(% 30
(Tablo 15
91 so -(Tablo 14).
92
uygulamalarla desteklenmesi gerekmektedir (Siegel ve Wissehr, 2011; Zembal-Saul, Starr, Krajcik, 1999).
orumlayabilme ve
- -
-(T
soru-93 simgeler . -envanterden eld -5 ve 5
-yer alan 30 maddeden ortalama olarak 10 (%33 13 (% 43)
6 (%20 -5 hem de S (Tablo 19 (geleneksel, a etkilemesi v
94
-(Tablo 18). Kruskal Wallis ve Man Whitney U testlerini -5 ile 5-10
0
95 . Alternatif nma .). -5 ile 5 -pa -bilgiler v --
-si gereken konunun deney ve etkinlikleri varsa o deney ve etkinlikler
-96 -10 olan -, -10 -5.2 --yeterlik -yeterlik
97 -yeterlik al ara- -testlerden yararl -uygulanan MANOVA -(Tablo 14). -yeterliklerinin yeterli
98 testler vb. Band -ve etkili b --5 ve 5-10 hizme -okuryaz --5 hem de 5 -. Bu
(Cheng, 2006; Culbertson ve Wenfan, 2003; Erdemir, 2007;
-99 -uygulanan MANOVA istatistiksel olarak (Tablo 21). Kruskal -5 ile 5 - 0-atistiki olarak -. -5 ve 5--yeterlik vb. geleneksel
-100 -olm e planlanabilir. -- dirme derslerinde,
-101 el
102 KAYNAKLAR
ergisi, 2 (3), 354-363
-etkisi. I. Ulusla
Interaction of Teaching Performance and Self-of Teacher Education, 39(3): 36-66.
Ak -Efficacy Beliefs of Prospective C
hemistry Teachers in terms of Different Variables: The Sample of Dokuz Eylul -2216.
-
Baki, A. & Birgin, O. (2004). Reflections of Using Computer-Based Portfolios as an Alternative Assessment Tools: A Case Study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3 (3), Article 11, http://www.tojet.net/articles/3311.htm Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman
Company
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman Pub.
-37.
103 thematics. School 187. -at. --184.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policies, and Practice, 5,7-73.
constructivist teaching. Educational Assessment, 14,57-77.
-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 5(3), 792-809.
Campbell, C., & Evans, J.A. (2000). Inv
assessment practices during student teaching. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 350 355
Campbell, C., Murphy, J. A., & Holt, J. K. (2002, October). Psychometric analysis of an assessment literacy instrument: Applicability to preservice teachers. Paper presented at the MidWestern Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH. Carr, W. (1998). Curriculum for democratic society. Curriculum Studies. 6(3), 326-339 Chappuis, S., Chappuis, J., & Stiggins, R. (2009). The quest for quality. Educational
Leadership, pp. 14-19.
Chase, C.I., (1999). Contemporary assessment for educators, New York: Longman.
Chen, Y., Martin, M.A. (2000). Using Performance Assessment and Portfolio Assessment Together in Elementary Classroom. Reading Improvement. 37(1). 32-38.
104
Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education resource room teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90: 230-240
Alternative Assessment, Taking The First Steps, The Clearing House May-June 2004
Costa, A.L. (1989). Re-assessing assessment. Educational Leadership, 46 (7).
des?. ChildhoodEducation. 75(3). 130-135.
(2008)
Danili, E. and Reid, N. (2005). Assessment formats: do they make a difference?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 6 (4), 204-212.
(1999).
Donoho, D. (2000, August). High-dimensional data analysis: The curses and blessings of dimensionality. Paper presented at the American Math Society 2000 Conference.
105
-Ediger, M. (2002). Measurement/evaluation courses in teacher education. Education, 121(1), 169 177.
Effie, M., (2004). How convincing is alternative assessment for use in higher education?. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education 29(3), 311- 321.
2003.
Gee, J.P. (2000) . The new litercay studies, form socially situated to the work of the social.In D.Barton,
Gelbal, S. ve
106
Gilman, D.A., Hasset, M.(1995). More than Work Folder: Using Portfolios for Educationa Assessment, Clearing House, 68(5), 310-312.
Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 607 621
Green, S. K., & Mantz, M. (2002 April). Classroom assessment practices: Examining impact on student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
-on Science Assessments Through an
New Orleans, LA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED 376 202.
Harlen, W. (1998). The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools. (Second Edition). Great Britain: The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge.
Harris, M (1997) Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT Journal 12-20.
Hein, G.E. ve Price, S. (1994). Active Assessment for Active Science A Guide for Elementary School Teachers. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
http://www.vitaminogretmen.com/videolar/314
-230, (2007)
oday, 19(4), 4-12, (1996) Johnson, R. B. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
107
Johnstone, A.H., MacGuire, P.R.P., Friel, S. and Morrison, E.W. (1983). Criterion referenced testing in science thoughts, worries and suggestions. School Science Review, 64, 626-634.
si,
sans Tezi. Gazi
Kaya,(2011). G
Kehoe, J., (1995). Basic item analysis for multiple-choice tests. Practical Assessment.
n
-93
Ankara
Law, B., & Eckes, M. (1995). Assessment ana ESL. Peguis Publishers: Manitoba, Canada. Retrived March 08, 2010 from books.google.com.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & William, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.
preparation in educational measurement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South, USA.
MacGuire, P.R.P. and Johnstone, A.H. (1987). Technique for Investigating the Understanding of Concept in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 565-577.
108 Maclellan, E. (2004). Initial
conceptualisations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 523 535.
-8. 25(5). McNamara, M. J. and Deane, D. (1995). Self-assessment activities: Toward autonomy in
-21
McNamee, G., & Chen, J. (2005). Dissolving the line between assessment and teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 72-76.
McNamee, G., & Chen, J. (2005). Dissolving the line between assessment and teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 72-76.
McTighe, J. and Ferrara, S. (1998). Assessing learning in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
McTighe, J., & Brown, J.L. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is detente possible? Theory into Practice, 44(3), 234-244.
-(2006)
(2006)
EBSCO Publishing Inc, (2008)
Mertler, A.C. and Campbell, C., (2005). Measuring teachers knowlede& application of classroom assessment concepts: development of the assessment literacy inventory. Annual Meetin of American Educational Research Association, Quebec, Canada, 11-15, April.
Mertler, A.C., (2004). Secondary teachers assessment literacy: does classroom experience make a difference. American Secondary Education, 33(1), pp:49 64.
classroom experience make a difference? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. Columbus, Ohio.
Miller, A. H., Imre, B. W., & Cox, K. (1998). Student assessment in higher education: A handbook for assessing performance. London: Kogan Page
109 Library Media Center, 23(7), 14-18.
-94.
Nitko, A.J., (2001). Educational assessment of students (3th edition). New Jersey-USA: Merril Prentice Hall
USA.
USA.
Nunan, D. (1988) The learner centered curriculum. Cambridge:CUP
Oosterhof, A. (1999). Developing and Using Classroom Assessments. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall
Oosterhof, A. (1999). Developing and Using Classroom Assessments. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall
4). Strategies for Effective Teaching. (Fourth Edition). New York: The Mcgraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Paterno, J. (2001). Measuring success: A glossary of assessment terms. In Building cathedrals: Compassion for the 21st century. Retrieved July 24, 2003, from http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/buildingcathedrals/measuringsuccess.html
Paterno, J. (2001). Measuring success: A glossary of assessment terms. In Building cathedrals: Compassion for the 21st century. Retrieved July 24, 2003, from http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/buildingcathedrals/measuringsuccess.html
110
Paulson, F. Leon and Peal R. Paulson (1991). Portfolios: Stories of knowing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Claremont Reading Conference. www.eric.com
Paulson, F. Leon, Peal R. Paulson, and A. Meyer (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership 48 (5): 60-63.
Language Minority Students. Program Information Guide Series, 9.(ERIC
Pike, K & Salend, S. J. (1995). Authentic Assessment Strategies: Alternatives to Norm-Referenced Testing. TEACHING Exceptional Children 28 (1). 15-20.
Plake, B.S., & Impara, J.C. (1993). Teacher assessment literacy questionnaire. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In cooperation with the National Council on Measurement in Education and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Plake, B.S., Impara, J.C., & Fager, J.J. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: A national survey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 10-12, 39. Popham, J. W. (2005). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Pearson
Education, Inc.
The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 265 273. 85- 86.
Popham, W.J. (2009). All about assessment: A process not a test. Educational
Leadership, 66(7),
Reeves, T.C, and Okey, J.R. (1996). Alternate Assessment for Constiructivist Learning
Studies in Instructional Design. 191-202. Englewood Clirffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications
Salend, S. C. (1995). Modifying testsfor diverse learners. Intervention in School & Clinic, 31(2), 84-90
Snavely, L. ve Cooper, N. (1997). The information literacy debate. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 23(1), 9 13.
111
Stiggins, R.J., (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), pp:238-245.
Stiggins, R.J., (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), pp:238-245.
Stiggins, R.J., (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), pp:238-245.
-52.
Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student selfassessment in summative assessment tasks: towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605-614.
Terhart, E., (2003). Constructivism and teaching: a new paradigm in general didactics?. Journal Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 25 44.
Thompson, S. J., Benson, S. N. K., Pachnowski L. M. ve Salzman, J. A. (2001). DecisionMaking in Planning and Teaching. Addision-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc., United States.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308-331.
112
And Hows. The Reading Teacher. 43 (4). 338-340
Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3): 749-770.
Wallace, M. (2011). Developing assessment practices: A study of the experiences of preservice mathematics teachers as learners and the evolution of their
assessment practices as educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, USA.
Wang, T. H., Wang, K. H., & Huang, S. C. (2008). Designing a web-based assessment environment for improving pre-service teacher assessment literacy. Computers &Education, 51(1), 448 462.
Wiggins, G. 1989. A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 70, pp. 703-713.
Wolf, D. P. 1989. Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational Leadership, 46, pp. 35 39.
-381.
-267.
-2006), Ankara: -5
motivation and self-
Zollman, A. ve Jones, D. L. (1994). Accommodating Assessment and Learning: Utilizing
113 EKLER EK 1. -D EK 2. -Y EK 3. EK 4. -EK 5. elgesi
120
EK 2.
-Bu ankette, sizlerin - belirleyecek olan maddeler yer
Her madde Yani,
bir maddede kendinizi h
. t 1 2 3 4 5 1. 2. Madde 3. edebilirim. 4. 5. belirleyebilirim. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. elde edebilirim. 13. 14. maddeleri belirleyebilirim. 15. Test kalitesini belirleyebilirim. 16. 17.
18. olarak standart puanlara
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. puanlayabilirim.
121 EK 3. 1. nedir? 2. 3. 4. 5. -6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ? 11.
-122 EK 4. -Y -1. hissediyor musunuz? 2.
kendinizi ne kadar yeterli hissediyorsunuz? 3.
123 EK 5. MEB
124
mleri
Ulusal Konferanslarda Sunulan Bildiriler:
.,
Bilgileri. Adana.
.,
Teknolojik Bilgileri ve Teknolojiyi Kullanmaya XI. Ulusal Fen
Adana.
-Yeterliklerinin
